Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Project aims to identify blacks who fought in Revolution
AP via boston.com ^ | July 19, 2006 | Mark Pratt

Posted on 07/19/2006 7:28:41 PM PDT by Pharmboy

BOSTON --Thousands of black men fought for American independence during the Revolutionary War, yet their contributions to the nation's freedom are for the most part unrecognized and rarely appear in modern history books.

Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the Sons of the American Revolution are hoping to change that by undertaking an ambitious project to identify those soldiers, and then find their descendants.

"My first goal with this project is to enhance the awareness of the American public of the role of African-Americans in the struggle for freedom in this country," said Gates, director of the W.E.B. DuBois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard.

"Plus, my concern is that there are many people walking around, like me, who had no idea that I had an ancestor who fought in the Revolution," he said.

It was that revelation which inspired Gates to launch the project.

Gates learned of his family history during filming of the PBS documentary series "African American Lives," which used DNA testing and genealogical research to investigate the ancestry of notable black Americans.

Genealogist Jane Ailes revealed to Gates -- executive producer of the series that first aired in February -- that his fifth great-grandfather on his mother's side was John Redman, a farmer from Williamsport, Va. (now part of West Virginia), who for four years fought with the 1st Virginia Light Dragoons during the Revolution.

Joseph W. Dooley, the chairman of the Sons of the American Revolution's membership committee, wants to identify as many people as possible who contributed to the Revolutionary War effort whose sacrifices "are not appreciated and not recognized," he said. Though he's starting with blacks, he envisions future projects to track the contributions of women and Native

An estimated 5,000 blacks fought for independence during the Revolution.

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: Connecticut; US: Delaware; US: Georgia; US: Maryland; US: Massachusetts; US: New Hampshire; US: New Jersey; US: New York; US: North Carolina; US: Pennsylvania; US: Rhode Island; US: South Carolina; US: Virginia; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: africanamericans; americanhistory; continentalarmy; genealogy; godsgravesglyphs; history; milhist; revolutionarywar; revwar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: SoCal Pubbie

That's right. The first American hero to give his life for Liberty was a black man.


21 posted on 07/19/2006 9:47:41 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
I've often said, usually to myself, that there's no need for Black History Month. American history IS black history.
22 posted on 07/19/2006 10:20:01 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie
Bingo.

And while we're on the subject, historians of the RevWar note that more American blacks than whites died during the Revolution. How? The Brits offered freedom to the slaves, and thousands came to their side. Some fought, but the great majority of them were put into camps where thousands died of smallpox, typhus, etc. The Brits just wanted to disrupt our side, and had no plan for them.

23 posted on 07/20/2006 3:27:31 AM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Crispus Attics, a black American, was indeed killed during the "Boston Massacre." He was a leader of a Boston street gang that was allied with the Sons of Liberty. I do not know whether or not he was present during the Tea Party, but it would not surprise me.

If he was present at "The Tea Party" it would have been in spirit only since the Boston Massacre occurred 4 years earlier. ;~))

24 posted on 07/20/2006 12:56:46 PM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

Yes indeed--I didn't date things out when I responded to that poster saying I didn't know about the Party, but he was certainly active in the Sons of Liberty circles in Boston.


25 posted on 07/20/2006 4:09:54 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

Thank you for the ping.


26 posted on 07/21/2006 7:18:39 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

A worthy project, that I'll watch with interest...


27 posted on 07/21/2006 7:21:09 AM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie
Crispus Attucks was the first KIA of the Revolution; there were several others wounded at the time he was killed, according to the histories I've read. They, too, were casualties.
28 posted on 07/21/2006 11:19:09 AM PDT by Old Student (WRM, MSgt, USAF(Ret.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Old Student

True. I thought somebody might correct me, and I knew full well I should have used the first fatality, but what the heck.


29 posted on 07/21/2006 11:55:34 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie
"True. I thought somebody might correct me, and I knew full well I should have used the first fatality, but what the heck."

I spend too much time with teenagers, and they're all nitpickers... ;)
30 posted on 07/21/2006 12:45:32 PM PDT by Old Student (WRM, MSgt, USAF(Ret.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

Thanks for the Ping. Go to the Peabody, Mass historical society for the black people from South Danvers, Peabody, who fought in the Revolution. Also look for the Little Bills from Marblehead who got Washington across the Delaware, Glover my butt.


31 posted on 07/21/2006 12:55:56 PM PDT by Little Bill (A 37%'r, a Red Spot on a Blue State, rats are evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000

Not really though it is a nice myth the Defenders of the Slaverocracy try and push. Until the very end of the war the leaders of the Confederacy were totally opposed to any such thing since it undermined the ideology supporting the attack on the Union. For the South the war was fought for ONLY one reason, slavery.


32 posted on 07/21/2006 1:00:09 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

You're mistaken. Blacks did fight for the Confederacy. The South didn't just fight for slavery. Yours is the popular myth. The South fought the Civil War for the same reasons they almost didn't stay part of the Union after its founding. Political, economic, and social differences between the North and South were plenty of reasons for secession. Slavery was only one part of the total concern.


33 posted on 07/21/2006 1:17:06 PM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000

Any blacks "fighting" for the Slavers were a tiny number although there were plenty of valets for the aristocracy, ditchdiggers, cooks, teamsters etc. When United States armies appeared ANYWHERE in the South they were inudated by slaves trying to escape the Tyranny of the Whip and the Lash.

Of course, the Slavers provoked the RAT Rebellion over slavery that was what they said themselves not just me. NONE of the other concerns would have provoked a decade long conspiracy to secede. There was no "tyranny" and the Slavers did not even wait until Lincoln took office before attacking the US.

There was NO "almost didn't stay part of the Union after its founding" except in your mind. And the South controlled the federal government for almost the entire period prior to the RAT Rebellion.

But these threadbare falsehoods are all the DS's have to try and defend the indefensible.


34 posted on 07/21/2006 1:24:56 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

I didn't claim they fought in large numbers. I also didn't claim that slaves fought either.

I said blacks, and I meant blacks, and free blacks did fight as combat soldiers for the Confederacy. And while most were support personnel, there were still volunteers among the blacks to fill those roles, and to fill combat roles.

Denying it is not going to change the fact that there were some. Yes, more fought against the South than for. Yes, many slaves fled the South the first chance they got. But, that doesn't change history - and your insistence does not rewrite history.

The South had greater, long standing grievances with the North, over tariffs, taxes, trade, and divisive social differences than the North's threat of emancipation. Emancipation was a symbol for both the North and South, and became most relevant AFTER the war had started. But it was not the single, sole issue around which the question of secession revolved.


35 posted on 07/21/2006 1:44:39 PM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000

Even free blacks were not allowed to form regiments to fight for the Confederacy unlike those formed to fight for the United States though some mulattos may have tried to pass as white and join. Slaver leaders were unalterably opposed to Black soldiers since they would contradict the entire theory of slaver culture. This idea was maintained until the very end.

There have been many posts attempting to prove your claim none have been successful except to those who want it to be true.

There was NO threat of emancipation that was a Slaver lie. Abolitionists were NEVER in charge of the federal government even after the War started.

The ONLY reason the Slavers attacked the US was because of slavery. Emancipation was not an issue for the United States until well into the war and was not popular among many of those fighting to preserve the Union. The war was not fought between those wanting to get rid of slavery and those wanting to keep it but between those wanting to preserve the Union and those wanting to keep slavery. Read what the Slaver leaders said. They were very clear and totally unapologetic about it. At least in that they were honest.

Nor was the tariff much of an issue though the apologists keep trying to claim it was. Tariffs were universally acceptable as a means of financing the federal government and had always been. And the rate in 1860 was not at a historic high or going up. It is simply another attempt to excuse an unprovoked attack upon the United States by pretending that the Slavers had a just excuse for their idiotic attempt to destroy the Union.


36 posted on 07/21/2006 2:10:50 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

There are too many inconsistencies and inaccuracies in your post to bother responding to.


37 posted on 07/21/2006 2:44:33 PM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
The Brits offered freedom to the slaves, and thousands came to their side. Some fought, but the great majority of them were put into camps where thousands died of smallpox, typhus, etc. The Brits just wanted to disrupt our side, and had no plan for them.

yes--this was very sad... i never learned this when studying U.S. History in school, and i absolutely loved the subject... i learned this recently as i was teaching my own son U.S. History...

38 posted on 07/21/2006 3:10:21 PM PDT by latina4dubya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: latina4dubya

You can never trust state schools for history of any sort, especially American history. That's why--even though my kids went to public school--I home school them in American history.


39 posted on 07/22/2006 5:13:16 AM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000

Yeah right.


40 posted on 07/24/2006 6:40:06 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson